6/20/17

LG HI Falcon, LLC.2301 Cedar Springs, #200Dallas, Texas 75201

Drexel, Barrell & CO.Tim McConnell3 South 7th StreetColorado Springs, CO. 80905

Dear Applicant and/or Consultant:

Subject: Falcon Marketplace Preliminary Plan (SP-17-001) Review 3 (Including early grading comments)

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the review agency responses to the above named development application that have been received to-date by Planning and Community Development.

You are encouraged to directly contact those agencies that did provide review comments if the comments require additional action by the applicant/applicant’s representative. You are also encouraged to directly contact those agencies that did not provide review comments if such response is required by state statutes and the El Paso County Land Development Code.

EL PASO COUNTY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Planning The preliminary plan is being reviewed within the criteria listed in the address the review and approval criteria in Section 7.2.1.D, and Chapter Nos. 7 & 8 of the Land Development Code (2016) and the procedures manual.

Staff has been made aware that access from Woodmen is being reconsidered by the applicant. If so, provide the exhibit with the resubmittal as it will change the preliminary plan.

Review 3 comments in bolded blue ink.

Land Development Code

1. There is one schedule number identified on the application; however the legal identifies two parcels. Please correct. Not addressed with submittal 3

2. The Condition of Approval relative to the preliminary plan design placed on the Commercial Regional Zoning District (CR-07-01) approval relative to Eastonville Road is as follows:

COMMISSIONERS:DARRYL GLENN (PRESIDENT)MARK WALLER (PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE)

STAN VANDERWERFLONGINS GONZALEZ

PEGGY LITTLETON

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCRAIG DOSSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

A public roadway shall be constructed through the subject propertyto allow access to Meridian Road from the Woodmen Frontage Road. The

alignment of this connection will be evaluated with the Preliminary Planand Final Plat. Deviations for this public connection from theEngineering Criteria Manual will be evaluated by the Development ServicesDepartment with the preliminary plan and final plat. The Developer will make appropriate road dedications and improvements as determined by the Board of County Commissioners at thetime of subdivision.

3. Resolved

Letter of Intent 1. Identify the preliminary plan approval criteria, Section 7.2.1.D, for this particular application.

Noted that the applicant states he meets criteria; how he meets it is not written. 2. Resolved3. Resolved4. Resolved5. Resolved

6. New Comment- The request for pre-site development grading to include installation of wet utilities is not a deviation or a waiver. Move paragraph to first sheet and state you are requesting pre site development grading to include wet utilities. Add the number of lots proposed with the preliminary plan to the request (heading: Location / Zoning / Requested Land Use).

7. State that the applicant is providing roadway and buffer landscape to ensure mitigation form adjacent land uses and continuity in design.

Preliminary Plan Map1. Resolved2. Resolved3. Resolved -Buffer in easement not tract-ok.4. Please note for future site development plans: all lots fronting Woodmen and Meridian Road are

subject to a 25 feet landscape setback. The lots along the internal road (private or public) will require a 10 feet landscape setback. No structures drive isles or paving are allowed within the landscape setback (driveway cuts are allowed). Please label the setback lines on either the cross sections or the roads. No label appears on the internal public road (Falcon Market Place), or woodmen Road. The Meridian Road does identify the landscape setback.

5. Resolved6. Resolved7. Resolved8. Please confirm that all items on the planning application checklist listed on the application are

included on the preliminary plan map (Sheet 3). Remove sheet 2 and put that information on sheet 3 please. The missing items from the checklist are below:

Approximate location, rights of way, width, surfacing, functional classification, and names of existing and proposed maintained and dedicated public and private streets.Identify the right of way to the north of the cul-de-sac on the plan to ensure this is platted and available or the connection by others. Add the width of the roadways, add “public” label.

Approximate layout, dimensions, angles, land use, and acreage or square footage of each lot, and tract. Not Addressed, Add the information to the map sheets.

The approximate location of land to be conveyed or reserved in deeds for the use

of all property owners, residents, or the general public and the proposed methods of dedication and maintenance of such lands; to include but not be limited to: parks, open space, public streets and thoroughfares, bikeways, paths, trails, schools and school sites, public utilities, and community and social service facilities. Staff is unaware that the County will own and maintain Tract B. There are multiple utility easements within the proposed pond. Defer to engineering comments.

Approximate location of existing and proposed structures Approximate location of:

o Watercourses, existing bodies of water, and other water forms Not Addressed, Add the floodplain line existing and proposed after LOMR information to the prelim plan map sheets

9. Notes:Please state what REA is in note 16.Please incorporate language regarding the responsibility to install, and maintain the landscape as shown within the landscape plan submitted with the preliminary plan. State how this will be enforced.

Documents / Reports 1. 1-4 resolved5. Geology, Soils and Hazards Report should meet the requirements of Section 8.4.9 of the Code.

Verify all specific requirements are included in report. More specifically, (Section 8.4.9 page 8-52) please provide a site specific map in the report to include the preliminary plan layout with the existing hazards (constraints) as identified in the report. An addendum can be completed. Also, provide notes in the report identifying the hazards and mitigation techniques to remove the constraints from the corresponding lots in the preliminary plan. These should also be reflected on the preliminary plan sheet 1 note section. See CGS revised comments below.

Landscape planThe landscape plan is being reviewed under Chapter 6 of the Land Development Code. It is noted that the landscape plan does not relieve the individual lot owners from meeting the requirements in Chapter 6 for parking, internal or uses to use landscape requirements. The intent of the landscape plan as submitted is to address the roadway category landscape requirements and buffer landscape requirements from the adjacent residential properties.

1. Blue Spruce may not grow well in the Falcon area, as water is limited, in addition to the windy dry conditions.

2. Does the sumac and dogwood shrub species do well in windy dry conditions? 3. There is type of type on sheet 1.4. A license agreement will need to be submitted at the final plat for the landscaped

medians.5. Please provide the data table (roadway name or property boundary, plants

required/plants provided) for the roadway landscape category, and the buffer requirements in which this plan represents. Where the requirement is not met, please state a waiver is requested. Staff is aware individual site plans will address the other categories as required per the Code.

6. Please identify the tree/shrub species on the plan so that staff can verify numbers and site visibility.

7. Provide a detail of the fence. A 7’ fence is now allowed per Code on property lines.8. Please address how the RR-5 (Residential Rural) to the north is being buffered on this

plan? Is fencing provided? 9. It is suggested that the live ground cover (irrigated grass) be waived and low

maintenance rock be utilized in effort to conserve water.

Engineering DivisionPlanning and Community Development (PCD)-Engineering reviews plans and reports to ensure general conformance with El Paso County standards and criteria. The project engineer is responsible for compliance with all applicable criteria, including other governmental regulations. Notwithstanding anything depicted in the plans in words or graphic representation, all design and construction related to roads, storm drainage and erosion control shall conform to the standards and requirements of the most recent version of the relevant adopted El Paso County standards, including the Land Development Code (LDC), the Engineering Criteria Manual (ECM), the Drainage Criteria Manual (DCM), and the Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 2 (DCM2). Any deviations from regulations and standards must be requested, and approved by the ECM Administrator, in writing. Any modifications necessary to meet overlooked criteria after-the-fact will be entirely the developer’s responsibility to rectify.

The comments include unresolved previous comments and new comments resulting from the re-submittal in bold. All previous comments that have been resolved have been noted or deleted. A written response to all comments and return of any redlines is required for review of the re-submittal. Please arrange a meeting between the developer’s team and County staff to review and discuss these comments and prepared revisions/responses prior to the next submittal.

Note that in order to obtain the Early Grading permit, most of the drainage and all of the Grading and Erosion control comments need to be addressed with detail to the final design level.

The comments include unresolved previous comments and new comments resulting from the re-submittal in bold italic. All previous comments that have been resolved have been noted or deleted. A written response to all comments and return of any redlines is required for review of the re-submittal. Please arrange a meeting between the developer’s team and County staff to review and discuss these comments and prepared revisions/responses prior to the next submittal.

Note that in order to obtain the Early Grading permit, most of the drainage and all of the Grading and Erosion control comments (separate letter sent) need to be addressed with detail to the final design level.

Preliminary Plan1. Provide maintenance and ownership entity columns in the Lot/Tract table. Partially resolved;

Tract B needs to be owned by the property owners or POA with a drainage easement granted to El Paso County. If Tract B is to be dedicated to the County, any existing encumbrances need to be removed or resolved prior to County acceptance. Also, the 25-foot landscape setback will need to be on the north side of Tract B.

2. through 6 – Resolved7. Label proposed auxiliary lanes and median type in Meridian Road. The TIS seems to show an

accel. Lane entering the site at Eastonville Road; please verify. Partially resolved; label all proposed improvements per TIS (see redlines). See old and new redlines.

8. Regarding the proposed private spine road:a. Resolvedb. Resolvedc. The cross-section right-of-way/easement width does not match the plan labels; revise as

appropriate. See comment 8.f. regarding proposed deviations.d. If the road through the site is not public, a maintenance turnaround will be required at the

end of the Woodmen Frontage Road. Vacation of the current turnaround right-of-way is unlikely unless some other turnaround arrangement is agreed upon. Partially resolved; vacation of the turnaround right-of-way is dependent on resolution of the other proposed deviations to allow for adequate maintenance access.

e. Verify that the proposed road centerline radii are adequate for an appropriate design speed. Comment remains; the proposed radii need to (being addressed with deviation request).

f. The new deviation request submitted with the revised TIS includes at least 10 deviations for the proposed Falcon Market Place, address TIS comment 6 and revise the plan accordingly. See redlines also. See revised TIS comments.

9. through 12 – Resolved13. The landscape plan included with this submittal shows trees in existing and proposed

ROW in several areas including along Meridian Road. Some of these trees need to be moved depending on final site design and construction plans. A license agreement will be required at the final plat stage for private landscaping remaining in the ROW, including the proposed roundabouts.

14. Revise the design per the latest roundabout design at the southwest corner if the Woodmen access is approved.

Transportation / Traffic Impact Study (TIS)1. The TIS shows total traffic and peak hour movements far exceeding the TIS reviewed with the

rezone application, dated October 2, 2007. This TIS needs to be set up to include analyses of all of the intersections in that previous study and comparable tables, including Tables 2 through 7. Provide additional discussion describing the changes from 2007 to the current proposal. Resolved; with the internal road proposed as public now, provide additional internal details including anticipated turning movements and LOS at each proposed access requiring a deviation, and ADT at each of the 3 access points to the site. Partially resolved;

a. The sight distance triangles need to be calculated for the proposed posted speed (25 MPH per the deviation request).

b. An additional deviation request is required for the intersection with the LOS F.2. Update Table 7 (improvements responsibilities table) to include construction triggers from this

development as applicable. Partially resolved;a. through d – Resolvede. Item 10: add “or roundabout”; address this option in the report. Comment

remains.f. Add Item 11: westbound to northbound acceleration lane from Woodmen to

Meridian Road. Comment remains.g. Resolved

Regarding items 11 through 13, construction or “fair share” escrow contribution, if applicable, will need to be determined and approved by the County Engineer with the final plat.

3. Verify whether or not the traffic signal at Meridian and Eastonville is proposed to be constructed with the first final plat connecting that intersection. If it is not, provide additional stop-condition and warrant analyses for the current and short-term conditions at this intersection. Resolved; coordination with EPC DPW will be provided at the final plat/construction stages.

4. The TIS needs to provide acceleration, deceleration, and stopping distances in accordance with current design and posted speeds. If these lengths cannot be met, provide deviation requests for shorter lengths as applicable. Resolved; reduction of the speed limit on Meridian Road between Woodmen Road and a location near Owl Lane (verify MUTCD requirement) is being considered by the County Engineer if this development proceeds.

5. Resolved6. The deviations submitted have not approved or denied pending review of the revised TIS.

Comment remains; 6/16: Comment remains; the deviations have still not been approved or denied pending further revisions. The number of issues remaining with the proposed design are not acceptable

a. Additional information is required for the two deviations for access from Meridian Road. Per comment 2, above, address the need for/benefit of right turn acceleration lanes on Meridian Road north of both Eastonville Road and Woodmen Road. Queuing results

show potential issues at these locations. Comment remains regarding Woodmen Road.

b. Regarding the new (multiple) deviation request for “Falcon Market Place” as a public road additional information and revisions are required:

i. ROW and paved width – RI/RO access: Not approved at this time due to concerns of whether a westbound left turn lane should be provided. Address with the detailed internal analysis per TIS comment 1. Comment remains; verify turning movements and the 4-way stop configuration. If this intersection were to be two-way stop control with Falcon Market Place having free movement, what LOS and queuing results does that analysis show? Also address a roundabout option.

ii. ROW and paved width – main road: Not approved at this time due to the overlapping issues with no shoulders and small centerline radii. 4-foot shoulders need to be extended through the site from the Woodmen Frontage Road. If WB-67 design vehicles are anticipated to make any deliveries to the site, would they be able to make the turns? Would they need to park in the center lane for deliveries? Comment remains; besides the conflicts with curb and gutter mentioned below, all of the right turns from the lots to Falcon Market Place seem to show the design vehicle entering both the TWLT lane and the oncoming traffic lane.

iii. Commercial lot access and spacing: Address anticipated turning movement traffic with the detailed internal analysis per TIS comment 1. It appears that some of the proposed access points would produce conflicting left turns and some may have limited sight distance; address or revise as appropriate. Cross-lot access may be required across certain outer lots and limitations on the types of uses may need to be considered if levels of traffic would impact traffic on Falcon Market Place. Partially resolved; the sight distance exhibits are all based on 20 MPH traffic. In locations where traffic is anticipated to be traveling at 25 MPH or greater, use that speed.

iv. Resolvedv. Resolvedvi. Horizontal curve radii: Address/update with revisions to the other deviations.

(Areas of limited sight distance were not identified). Comment remains.vii. Intersection spacing (Eastonville Road extension): Address with internal site

analysis per TIS comment 1 and provide turning templates around the roundabout for anticipated design vehicles. Partially resolved; the turning templates show that the proposed design has issues with vehicle clearances from curb and gutter and the median island as proposed; revise as appropriate.

viii. Exclusive right turn lanes required (internal): Address turning movements with the detailed internal analysis per TIS comment 1. Partially resolved; analysis and discussion was provided, but in combination with the other issues identified, this cannot be approved as proposed.

ix. Turn lane design: Address turning movements with the detailed internal analysis per TIS comment 1. Partially resolved; analysis and discussion was provided, but in combination with the other issues identified, this cannot be approved as proposed.

x. Curb returns radii: Denied at this time. Provide turning templates with WB-50 design vehicle and WB-67 where anticipated with the revised design. Comment remains; the templates show unacceptable turning and tracking at many locations.

- Concerns with the public road as shown include maintenance (plowing, repaving, etc.), access (delivery trucks), and safety/adequacy of pedestrians, bicycle traffic and turning movements with the narrow road, sharp turns and no shoulders. The design needs to meet WB-50 design vehicle requirements, and the WB-67 design vehicle

needs to be accommodated where it is reasonable to assume they may have a delivery within the site or need to travel through the site. Comment remains; the turning templates seem to show multiple locations where curb and gutter is likely to be driven over or hit by the design vehicle, snow plow and WB-67 (including roundabout islands). Potential conflicts through the southeast and southwest corner curves are a concern where left-turning vehicles will have conflicts with the WB-50 design vehicle and larger. Provide exhibits showing the revised design and road and roundabout backgrounds and lanes with the next submittal. Expand Figures 5 and 6 to show the complete turning templates on the north end and show turns from and to the internal west access (at southwest curve). Provide WB-62 and fuel tanker templates through the site since a gas station has been proposed as a potential use.

- Adequate transition needs to be provided from the Woodmen Frontage Road cross section to the Falcon Market Place road section. Comment remains.

- Reference NCHRP Report 672; Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, specifically chapter 6, regarding the roundabout geometric design. Compliance with the concepts in that guide and County criteria will need to be shown with the actual roundabout designs through roundabout design reports. Initial concerns with the current design include those listed above and in the Woodmen Road access comments; circulating width; entry angle, entry radii and phi (and calculation method); accommodation of buses and snow plows (they shouldn’t need to use the center apron and curb clearances should be 1-2 feet); and fastest path speed consistency.

Following are applicable November 2, 2007 comments (renumbered 7-15) that were remaining to be addressed from the rezone approval (CR-07-001, condition of approval #2). Address as appropriate with the updated TIS:

7. The overall study for the Latigo Area should include a fair and equitable cost from each developer that would need to be determined prior to final plat. This equation should address the cost sharing of all regional improvements. 10/29/07: Many improvements have been identified to develop commercial in the area. Costs that are regional or part of the subarea should be shared among developers. These costs and contributions will be identified with the final plat. Resolved; any off-site improvement contributions (or potential cost recovery) will be identified with the final plat.

8. through 11 – Resolved12. Levels of service E are shown at the intersection of Eastonville and Meridian Road and

Woodmen and Golden Sage. Provide methods of mitigating these unacceptable levels of service. A possible solution is to specify uses to trip generation that would bring the turn lanes into conformance. 10/29/07: These deviations will be evaluated further with the preliminary plan. Comment remains regarding the Eastonville/Meridian intersection; conditions may be placed on the deviation request by the County Engineer. Comment remains.

13. through 15 – Resolved16. Address comments on the Woodmen access (AP-17-001) as applicable with the next

submittal.

Attachments1. Preliminary Plan Redlines2. TIS Redlines (Exhibits)

The comments include unresolved previous comments EARLY GRADING and new comments resulting from the re-submittal in bold italic. All previous comments that have been resolved have been noted or deleted. A written response to all comments and return of any redlines is required for

review of the re-submittal. Please arrange a meeting between the developer’s team and County staff to review and discuss these comments and prepared revisions/responses prior to the next submittal.

Note that in order to obtain the Early Grading permit, most of the drainage and all of the Grading and Erosion control comments need to be addressed with detail to the final design level.

Preliminary Drainage Report (PDR) / Drainage Plans1. Provide all required PDR checklist items (attached). The known missing/incomplete items have

been highlighted. Comment remains; see remaining items and redlines for clarification. Existing conditions and proposed on-site conditions need to be fully addressed. See remaining items and redlines. Note: revisions and additional reviews will be required to address the access from Woodmen Road if that design is proposed.

2. Address existing conditions, basins, and design points for comparison to the proposed condition. Comment remains; see redlines. Resolved

3. Resolved4. Discuss runoff flow values and proposed facilities at design points in the report text. Comment

remains for local (Rational calculation) basins. Partially resolved; include discussion on all proposed inlets.

5. Resolved6. Address how the proposed design accommodates the existing petroleum pipeline and other

utilities along the south and east property lines. Provide documentation that the easement holders have no objections to the proposed drainage design. Comment remains. Provide documentation when available.

7. Resolved8. See redlines regarding pond construction reimbursement. Resolved; this section was deleted

and can be added back to the Final Drainage Report. Partially resolved; see redlines on process.

9. Resolved10. Provide preliminary storm drain, channel, headwater, freeboard and spillway sizing calculations.

Partially resolved; a. Additional detail and clarification will be required for features to be constructed

with the overlot grading or in the FDR for subdivision construction items. See redlines.

b. Because it is an integral part of the overall release rate design, provide additional detail on the function of the downstream channel and check dam/weir east of the western set of 48-inch pipes under Woodmen Road. Provide discussion in the PDR, cross-sections and weir/channel calculations. If the HEC-RAS cross-sections are used for this, label the pertinent information on those sheets (see redlines). An option to this would be to omit the weir for the overlot grading and address it in the FDR, final GEC and final CDs.

11. Geotechnical issues (also see Geotech. study comments below)a. Page 31 of the geotech. study states that “In no case should water be allowed to pond

near or adjacent to foundation elements, hardscaping, utility trench alignments, etc.” Discuss how the proposed drainage design accomplishes this. Partially resolved; final liner details need to be provided with FDR or in this report prior to pond construction. Comment remains.

b. Address anticipated pond SR4 embankment settlement. Provide additional study and construction requirements when available. Resolved; tracking of settlement will be addressed at construction stage.

c. Consider replacing the proposed area drain and pipe at the northwest corner with a swale along the north property line to the proposed rundown. Maintenance access appears likely to be difficult as proposed and the geotech. study recommends “properly designed drainage swale” at the tops of excavation slopes. Partially resolved; stabilization of and maintenance access to the 3:1 (and steeper?) excavated slope

along the north side of Pond SR4 will need to be further addressed with the final pond design. (If the extent of overlot grading includes the slopes, this needs to be addressed with overlot grading.)

d. Discuss the required geotechnical and dam analyses appropriate for detention pond SR4. See DCM Sections 6.6, 11.3.3, and Attachment A (Chapter 11). Partially resolved; provide additional study and construction requirements when available.

12. Resolved13. Drainage Plan:

a. Provide an Existing Conditions drainage plan. Show and label design points as appropriate for comparison to the proposed plan. Partially resolved; see redlines regarding local basins and design points. Resolved; show existing Meridian Road storm drains at the south end as shown on Meridian Road bid set.

b. Show and label all proposed maintenance access roads and easements on the Developed Conditions Plan. Partially resolved; see GEC redlines regarding this. Provide stabilized access roads along the west and north sides of the pond. See additional redlines; due to the rundown along the north side of the pond, pond bottom stabilization is required which could be incorporated into an access road design through that area.

c. Label (add) the material and slope of the existing culverts. Partially resolved; label the outfall locations for the existing median inlets in Meridian Road and Woodmen Road. Ensure that there are no conflicts with proposed improvements. See redlines and e-mailed Meridian Road bid plan sheets.

d. Provide a design point summary of 5- and 100-year flow rates at all surface and pipe design points on both the existing and proposed plans. Partially resolved; address per local basin and DP redlines. Comment remains; see redlines regarding flows from the north.

e. Note: The determination of crown location and inlet or sheet flow for the additional paving on Meridian Road (and at other offsite locations if required due to approval of the Woodmen Road right-in) will need to be determined with the Final Drainage Report and offsite CDs.

14. through 16 – Resolved17. All runoff from Falcon Market Place (road) needs to be treated for WQCV or a deviation

approved for areas that are not treated (southwest area?). See redlines regarding Pond #3. Of course this will all need to be revised if the Woodmen Road access with roundabout is approved.

18. Adequate separation of the inlet and outlet for Pond #2 needs to be provided. Reference UDFCD USDCM Volume 3 EDB Design Procedure and Criteria, page EDB-3. Consider shifting the inlet to the west and/or the outlet to the east. Another option would be to construct a wall directing flows toward the end of the pond before reaching the outlet.

19. The appendices following the inlet calculations are scrambled and have some missing pages; replace for the next submittal.

20. This is the first submittal with the overflow spillway calculation page for Pond SR4. Provide a separate weir calculation showing total spillway capacity.

21. If any of the CLOMR excerpts have been revised with the design (i.e. StormCAD), provide revised versions in the report calculations.

Grading and Erosion Control Plan / SWMP / Geotechnical Issues1. Note: Regarding the request for pre-development site grading (“early grading”), a checklist of

final submittal requirements was previously provided. The separate Construction Drawing review (CDR-16-007) (comments incorporated below) needs to be complete and those plans approved along with the GEC plans prior to overlot grading. The PDR will need final-level details as well, including complete pipe and pond design, if the Final Drainage Report is not to be submitted and approved prior to overlot grading.

2. GEC Plan:

a. Provide all required GEC checklist items (attached). The known missing/incomplete items have been highlighted. You may need to split sheet 2 into two sheets (north and south) or more to show all information and detail required. Comment remains. See remaining items. For the overlot/early grading permit, an interim plan will be necessary showing only the grading and drainage improvements necessary for the overlot grading. This will exclude work outside of the property lines and storm drains that serve the future lots. If the Pond SR4 embankment will be completed, the pond outlet and downstream storm drain (or interim channel) will need to be installed.

b. through d – Resolvede. The limits of disturbance appear to extend into County ROW. More detail is required on

what exactly is being done in these areas and a work in the right-of-way permit will be required from EPC Department of Public Works. Temporary construction access to Meridian Road will be at the County Engineer’s discretion. Comment remains; the overlot grading (needs to remain within the property). To be addressed with Interim GEC Plan.

f. through h – Resolvedi. Required forms will be provided by e-mail with the next submittal review or earlier, upon

request. (Updates e-mailed June 1st.)j. Add the following note to the cover page: “These construction documents will be

valid for construction for a period of 2 years from the date signed by the El Paso County Engineer. If construction has not started within those 2 years, the plans may need to be resubmitted for approval at the County Engineer’s discretion.”

k. See new redlines.3. Ground Engineering Geotechnical Report dated October 18, 2016:

a. Resolvedb. There is only one boring in the SR4 pond area, which indicates very shallow

groundwater. Recommendations on how to keep the groundwater from infiltrating the pond (which is to be excavated approximately 10 feet deeper than the groundwater level) need to be provided. If a separate geotech. study will be provided for pond construction, let us know. Comment remains; provide additional study when available.

c. Resolvedd. Note: Comments regarding pavement design for the proposed spine road will be

provided with the Final Plat review, dependent on final design/layout and determination of public or private maintenance. Final geotechnical study and review of construction plans by the geotechnical P.E. will be required at the Final Plat stage.

4. SWMP:a. Provide remaining items highlighted in blue on attached checklist.b. Items highlighted in yellow need to be provided in the on-site SWMP when

construction begins.c. Revise “City of Colorado Springs” to “El Paso County” in Section 7.0.

CLOMR Report and Construction Plans (#1-#13 from CLOMR comments) 1. Provide a comparison of the historic (FEMA) flow used in previous LOMRs on this tributary to

developed flows. Response is that there was none, but there should be for the previous LOMRs (see 06-08-B427P also) 2/17: Comment remains. 5/30: Per report excerpts in the e-mail sent 2/23/2017, FEMA flows are 310 cfs at the west culverts; 295 cfs at the east culverts; 6875.4 upstream HGL (no response required).

2. Include utility locations on all plans and cross-sections. Partially resolved; show or note locations of non-potable water and electric on the cross-sections of the construction drawings per the comment response. 2/17: Comment remains. 5/30: Comment remains.

11. Note: A soils/geotechnical investigation as appropriate for detention pond and embankment construction will be required with the Construction drawings submitted for County approval.

Reference ECM Section 2.2.6. For the complete construction drawing review, all County submittal requirements need to be met, including the following: (to be revised with CDs) 2/17: Comment remains. 5/30: Comment remains.

a. Survey horizontal and vertical control pointsb. All necessary onsite and offsite drainage and access easementsc. Key-in and compaction requirementsd. Liner design specifications and details.

13. Annotated FIRM contains some illegible text (PDF scrambled). 5/30: Provide final (approved version) CLOMR CD when available.

14. Add to the title of the CDs: “POND SR4/OVERLOT GRADING & UTILITIES”.15. Some of the sheets and plan details are marked as “not for overlot grading.” These

sheets include subdivision improvements (storm drains) that cannot be included with overlot grading. The interim/overlot plans also need to have proposed road design removed.

16. Reference attached UDFCD outlet structure design details. Specific items that need to be incorporated into the project’s outlet structure designs include the orifice plate design and notes, water quality plate details (type and thickness), stainless steel well screen (page OS-9) and neoprene gasket. Complete review of sheet C7.9 will be provided after revisions. Sheets C7.11 and C7.12 will be reviewed with the subdivision CDs.

17. Provide a detailed liner design drawing with elevations and extents. Ensure that conflicts with the other pond features are addressed.

18. See redlines on CDs.

Financial Assurance Estimate Form/Other1. Provide a Financial Assurance Estimate form including all required GEC items. Comment

remains. Partially resolved; Clarification needs to be provided on the extent of construction with the overlot grading, to be as shown on the Interim GEC Plan. All improvements required, included the following need to be included on the FAE form: rundowns, low-flow channels, forebays, outlet structure, pipes, stabilized access roads, etc.

2. The complete form including defect warranty section needs to be provided.3. Provide PDB/BMP agreement exhibits A and B when available. If an access easement

other than the to-be platted pond tracts/easements is desired, an Exhibit “C” can be provided.

Attachments3. Preliminary Drainage Report Redlines4. GEC Plan Redlines5. Preliminary Drainage Report Checklist (remaining items)6. GEC Checklist7. SWMP Checklist8. UDFCD USDCM Outlet Structure pages

Preliminary Drainage Report (PDR) Checklist (remaining items)

The purpose of the Preliminary Drainage Report is to identify specific solutions to problems onsite and offsite resulting from the development of the subdivision to be platted. In addition, those problems that exist prior to development must be addressed in the preliminary report. The PDR shall be in accordance with the following outline and contain the applicable information listed. Drainage reports must utilize the following format and major headings as noted below.

Report Contents

Drainage Facility Design – General Concept1) Discussion of compliance with offsite runoff considerations.2) Discussion of anticipated and proposed drainage patterns.3) Discussion of the content of tables, charts, figures, plates or drawings

presented in the report.

Drainage Facility Design – Specific Details4) Presentation of existing and proposed hydrologic conditions including

approximate flow rates entering and exiting the subdivision with all necessary calculations.

5) Presentation of approach to accommodate drainage impacts on existing or proposed improvements and facilities.

6) Presentation of proposed facilities with respect to alignment, material and structure type.

7) Discussion of drainage impact of site constraints such as streets, utilities, existing and proposed structures.

8) Environmental features and issues shall be presented if applicable.

Drawing Contents36) Drainage Plan: Map(s) of the proposed development at a scale of 1”=20’

to 1”=200’ shall be included to identify existing and proposed conditions on or adjacent to the site in question.

37) The drainage plan shall delineate all sub-basins and proposed initial and major facilities as well as provide a summary of all initial and major flow rates at design points. All floodplains affecting the site shall be shown.

El Paso County Grading and Erosion Control Plan Submittal Checklist

1) Vicinity map. 2) North arrow and acceptable scale (1”=20’ to 1”=100’). 3) Existing and proposed Contours 2 feet or less (except for hillside). 4) Standard EPC Grading and Erosion Control Notes included. 5) Delineate mapped FEMA 100-yr floodplain. 6) Construction site boundaries clearly delineated. 7) Areas of soil disturbance shown. 8) All proposed construction BMPs and Construction BMP details shown. 9) Show existing vegetation. 10) Existing and proposed water courses including springs, streams, wetlands, Detention ponds,

roadside ditches, irrigation ditches and other water surfaces. 11) Show all existing structures. 12) Show all existing utilities. 13) Submit geotechnical investigation from soils engineer. 14) Conclusions from soils report and geologic hazards report incorporated in grading design.

15) Show existing and proposed property lines and site boundary. 16) All existing and proposed easements (permanent and construction).including required off site

easements. 17) Any offsite grading clearly shown and called out. 18) Existing and proposed storm drainage facilities as necessary to show all BMPs. 19) Temporary sediment ponds provided for disturbed drainage areas greater than one acre.

20) Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 with top and toe of slope delineated. 21) Erosion control blanketing shown on slopes steeper than 3:1. 22) Retaining walls greater than or equal to 4ft in height require design by P.E. and building

permit from Regional Building Department. Locations to be shown on the plan (not located in County ROW).

23) Vehicle tracking shown at all construction entrances. 24) The erosion control plan is to be certified by a Colorado Registered P.E. with appropriate

signature blocks for EPC and the Engineer and the statement “The Owner will comply with the requirements of the Erosion Control Plan” signed by the owner.

25) Required Signature blocks:

Stormwater Management Plan Checklist

1 Applicant (owner/designated operator), Prepared By, SWMP Administrator, and Contractor information

2 Table of Contents 3 Site description and location to include vicinity map (not just Section, Township, Range) 4 Narrative description of construction activities proposed (e.g., may include clearing and grubbing,

temporary stabilization, road grading, utility / storm installation, final grading, final stabilization, and removal of temporary control measures)

5 Phasing plan – may require separate drawings indicating initial, interim, and final site phases for larger projects. Provide “living maps” that can be revised in the field as conditions dictate.

6 Proposed sequence for major activities: Provide a construction schedule of anticipated starting and completion dates for each stage of land-disturbing activity depicting conservation measures anticipated, including the expected date by which the final stabilization will be completed.

7 Estimates of the total site area and area to undergo disturbance 8 Soil erosion potential and potential impacts upon discharge 9 A description of existing vegetation at the site and percent ground cover10 The location and description of any other potential pollution sources such as fueling (mobile or

stationary), chemical storage, etc.11 Material handling to include spill prevention and response procedures12 Spill prevention and pollution controls for dedicated batch plants13 Other stormwater pollutant control measures to include waste disposal and cleanup of off-site soil

tracking14 The location and description of any anticipated non-stormwater components of discharge

(springs, irrigation, etc.)15 The name of ultimate receiving waters; size, type and location of stormwater outfall or storm

sewer system discharge16 SWMP Map to include: a) construction boundaries

b) all areas of disturbancec) areas of cut and filld) areas used for storage of building materials, soils or wastes (stockpiles)e) location of any dedicated asphalt / concrete batch plantsf) location of all structural BMPsg) location of all non-structural BMPsh) springs, streams, wetlands and other surface waters

17 Narrative description of all structural BMPs to be used, including: silt fence, straw bales, check dams, sediment basins, diversion swales, etc. Ensure that methods are ECM/DCM-approved.

18 Description of non-structural BMPs to be used including seeding, mulching, protection of existing vegetation, site watering, sod placement, etc.

19 Technical drawing details for BMP installation and maintenance20 Procedure for how the SWMP will be revised21 Description of final stabilization and long-term stormwater quality measures to control stormwater

pollutants after construction operations have been completed22 Specification that vegetative cover density is to be a minimum of 70% of pre-disturbed levels to

be considered stabilized23 Outline of permit holder inspection procedures to install, maintain, and effectively operate BMPs

to manage erosion and sedimentation24 Record keeping procedures identified to include signature on inspection logs and location of

SWMP records onsitePlease note: all items need to be addressed. If not applicable, explain; simply identifying “not applicable” will not satisfy CDPHE requirement of explanation.

05/18/2023

EL PASO COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS

RE. FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR),FEMA Case No. 17-08-0074R, EI Paso County, CO

Dear Mr. Albrecht:

I am providing this written statement in response to your request for a maintenance plan in your letter dated January 6, 2017 to Steven Leslie, P.E., Drexel, Barrett & Company The proposed regional detention Pond SR4 is located in unincorporated El Paso County along an unnamed tributary to Black Squirrel Creek located immediately northwest of the intersection of Woodmen Road and Meridian Road.

In accordance with the Falcon Drainage Basin Planning Study (DBPS), which was adopted as a component of the County Master Plan on September 17, 2013, the Falcon Marketplace development is proposing to construct Pond SR4 as a regional detention facility. Required reports, construction plans, and the operations and maintenance plan for the facility have been submitted for review, but have not yet been approved. It is also my understanding that the developer proposes to subdivide the property and is proposing to include as part of the subdivision plat a dedication of a tract for the detention facility as well as a dedication of either a tract or public drainage easements for the proposed public conveyance facilities located downstream of the pond all of which are proposed to be conveyed to El Paso County. In accordance with El Paso County Drainage Criteria Manual, the subject public facility is eligible for perpetual ownership and maintenance by El Paso County if designed and constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by County Engineer and upon successful completion of a two year construction warranty period and conveyance of the property interests.

The County requires that developer be responsible for maintenance during the warranty period in accordance with the approved Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Upon completion of construction and satisfactory completion of the required warranty period, and the County Engineer determines that the installed improvements meet all applicable Standards, the County Engineer shall prepare and schedule final acceptance documents for the public improvements and the property interests for the El Paso County Board of County Commissioner hearing. Upon final written acceptance of the facilities, detention Pond SR4 and downstream public conveyance facilities will be owned and maintained by EI Paso County (EPC).

Upon final acceptance of the improvements and property interests, EI Paso County will maintain the public facilities to ensure that the improvements function as designed and as approved in the subject FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision as well as El Paso County Criteria. In addition, the improvements will be regularly inspected by El Paso County in compliance with El Paso County's policies and procedures, the adopted O&M Plan, and the County’s Phase II MS4 Stormwater Permit.

If you have any questions, or need additional information please contact this office at (719) 520-

05/18/2023

6898 or jenniferirvine@elpasoco. com.

EL PASO COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE

March 28, 2017

Falcon Marketplace Preliminary Plan

Cole Emmons, Senior Assistant County Attorney Edi Anderson, Paralegal

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. This is a proposal by LG HI Falcon, LLC (“Applicant”) for a Preliminary Plan to subdivide an approximately 36.4 acre parcel into 11 commercial lots/pads, plus a regional detention facility. This is the property that was previously owned by the Gaddie Family. The property is zoned CR (Commercial Regional).

2. The Applicant has provided that the source of water for the subdivision will be a central water system—Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District (“District" or “WHMD") — which is supplied by the Denver Basin. The Applicant submitted a Water Supply Information Summary estimating the annual water requirement to serve the 11-lot subdivision at 10.59 acre-feet per year to be served by various sizes of water taps. Based on these numbers, the Applicant will need to provide a supply of 3,177 acre-feet of water (10.59 acre-feet per year x 300 years) to meet EI Paso County’s 300 year requirement.

3. In a letter dated November 17, 2016, the Director for Water and Wastewater for the District provided a commitment to serve the Falcon Marketplace commercial subdivision. The District stated they “will provide water and wastewater service to Falcon Marketplace which consists of 11 commercial lots/pads having an estimated total SFE water demand of 29 SFE which equates to 10.59 annual acre-feet [for] 300 years."

The District noted that with inclusion of the Falcon Marketplace subdivision into the District, water right determinations which total approximately 6.67 annual acre-feet (for 300 years) were turned over to the District. Since the subdivision water demand will exceed 6.67 acre-feet per ear the Applicant will be providnq a_fee in lieu of water rights to make up the remainder of the difference to the District . In a telephone conversation, District staff advised that the fee in lieu of water rights is a one-time payment. Regardless of this arrangement, the District has committed to provide the Falcon Marketplace subdivision with the annual supply of 10.59 acre-feet of water demand as required by the subdivision.

4. In a letter dated February 14, 2017, the State Engineer’s Office stated they received the Falcon Marketplace proposal indicating an annual water demand for the subdivision of 10.59 acre-feet for the eleven commercial lots. The State Engineer acknowledged receipt of the November 17, 2016 letter from the District committing to the water demand of 10.59 acre-feet per year for the subdivision. The State Engineer noted that the District has 988 acre-feet/year of Denver Basin water which may be withdrawn in that annual amount for a maximum of 300 years. The State Engineer further noted that “439 acre-feet of the WHMD’s supply is water produced from alluvial sources which are currently considered to be renewable. Therefore, based on a 300- year aquifer life allocation, the WHMD has a potential annual water supply of approximately 1,427 acre-feet." Based on the

05/18/2023

District’s current commitments of 953.59 acre-feet, there remains an “uncommitted annual water supply of 472.96 acre-feet" which exceeds the water demand of 10.59 acre-feet/year which is the amount needed by the Falcon Marketplace subdivision. As a result of the foregoing, the State Engineer declared that “pursuant to Sections 30-28-136(1)(h)(I) and 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed water supply is adequate and can be provided without causing injury to decreed water rights."

5. Section 8.4. 7(B)(10)(g), of the EI Paso County Land Development Code allows for the presumption of acceptable water quality for projects such as this where water is supplied by an existing Community Water Supply operating in conformance with Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations unless there is evidence to the contrary.

6. Analysis: Based on the State Engineer’s analysis, the available supply of water to the District is 1,427 acre-feet annually, including the water from alluvial sources, which the State Engineer states is an annually renewable and permanent source of water. Given the District’s current annual commitments of 953.59 acre-feet and uncommitted annual supply of 472.96 acre-feet, from which the proposed annual demand of 10.59 acre-feet for the 11 lots for the Falcon Marketplace commercial subdivision is deducted, this would leave a balance of approximately 462.37 acre-feet. Therefore, based on the foregoing, it appears the proposed water supply will be sufficient to meet the demands of the Falcon Marketplace commercial subdivision.

7. Based upon the finding of sufficiency and no injury to existing water rights by the State Engineer’s Office, and based upon the commitment letter from the Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District committing a water supply of 10.59 acre-feet per year to the subdivision, the County Attorney’s Office recommends a finding that the proposed water supply is sufficient in terms of quantity and dependability, subject to the conditions set forth below. The EI Paso County Health Department may confirm that the District is in compliance with the water quality regulations.

CONDITIONS OF COMPLIANCE:

A. Applicant and all future owners of lots within this filing shall be advised of, and comply with, the conditions, rules, regulations, and specifications set by the District.

B. Prior to recording the final plat, Applicant shall provide written proof to the Planning and Community Services Department and the County Attorney’s Office that it has paid the required fee in lieu of water rights as required by the District.

WOODMEN ROAD MMETROPOLITAN DISTRICT

In response to the proposed project this parcel will be subject to the Commercial Woodmen Road Metropolitan District Fee’s and mill levies Platting fees of $1540 x 36.4 (Acre) = $56,056.00This proposed site would be subject at time of Final Plat Recording, for Woodmen Road Metropolitan District.

We are recommending that this parcel join the Woodmen Road District as it has received its full benefits with the District funding of Woodmen Road.

05/18/2023

The land owner will need to contact our office to annex this parcel into the Woodmen Road District prior to recording of final plat.  Please contact our office should there be any questions.  Autumn Masonautumn@schoolerandassociates.comAdmin Assistant 20 Boulder Crescent Street Ste 200Office (719) 447-1777

COLORADO WATER ENGINEER’S OFFICE

Water Supply DemandAccording to the submittal, the total annual water demand is 10.59 acre-feet for

the eleven commercial lots.

Source of Water SupplyThe proposed water supplier is the Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District (WHMD

or District). The District has provided a letter dated November 17, 2016, "Commitment Letter for Falcon Marketplace," for 10.59 annual acre-feet.

In the El Paso County Land Development Code, effective November, 1986, Chapter 5, Section 49.5, (D), (2) states:

"- Finding of Sufficient Quantity - The water supply shall be of sufficient quantity to meet the average annual demand of the proposed subdivision for a period of three hundred (300) years."

Approximately 2,963 acre-feet/year of WHMD water supply comes from Denver Basin bedrock aquifers, based on a 100 year aquifer life. The State Engineer's Office does not have evidence regarding the length of time for which this source will "meet the average annual demand of the proposed subdivision." However, treating El Paso County' s requirement as an allocation approach based on three hundred years, the allowed average annual amount of withdrawal of 2,963 acre-feet/year would be reduced to one third of that amount, or 988 acre-feet/year. As a result, the water may be withdrawn in that annual amount for a maximum of 300 years.

Approximately 439 acre-feet of the WHMD's supply is water produced from alluvial sources, which are currently considered to be renewable. Therefore, based on a 300-year aquifer life allocation, the WHMD has a potential annual water supply of approximately 1,427 acre-feet.

Records in our office indicate that WHMD's current commitments total 953.59 acre-feet per year, based on a 300-year aquifer life allocation.

The uncommitted annual water supply of 472.96 acre-feet is more than the estimated annual demand of 10.59 acre-feet for Falcon Marketplace.

05/18/2023

State Enqineer's Office OpinionBased upon the above and pursuant to Sections 30-28-136(1)(h)(I) and 30-28-136(1)

(h)(ll), C.R.S., it is our opinion that the proposed water supply is adequate and can be provided without causing injury to decreed water rights.

Our opinion that the water supply is adequate is based on our determination that the amount of water required annually to serve the subdivision is currently physically available, based on current estimated aquifer conditions.

Our opinion that the water supply can be provided without causing injury is based on our determination that the amount of water that is legally available on an annual basis, according to the statutory allocation approach, for the proposed uses on the subdivided land is greater than the annual amount of water required to supply existing water commitments and the demands of the proposed subdivision.

Our opinion is qualified by the following:

The Ground Water Commission has retained jurisdiction over the final amount of water available pursuant to the relevant determinations and well permits, pending actual geophysical data from the aquifer.

The amounts of water in the Denver Basin aquifer, and identified in this letter, are calculated based on estimated current aquifer conditions. For planning purposes the county should be aware that the economic life of a water supply based on wells in a given Denver Basin aquifer may be less than the 100 years (or 300 years) used for allocation due to anticipated water level declines. We recommend that the county determine whether it is appropriate to require development of renewable water resources for this subdivision to provide for a long-term water supply.Keith Vander Horst, P.E. Designated Basins Team Leader303-866-3581 – www.water.state.co.us

COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEYReview 2-

Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the response to comments for the Falcon Marketplace Preliminary Plan referral. We understand the applicant proposes 11 commercial lots and a regional detention facility on 36.4 acres located northwest of the intersection of Woodmen Road and Meridian Road. With this resubmittal we received, a Request for Review #2 (El Paso County, March 23, 2017), a Letter of Intent and Preliminary Plan (Drexell, Barrell & Co, March 23, 2017), and a Response 1 letter (Drexell, Barrell & Co, March 23, 2017).The majority of the concerns noted in our letter dated February 9, 2017 have been acknowledged in the applicant’s response letter. However, the letter also indicates that the recommendation for a low permeability liner for the sub-regional detention pond #1 and the drainage provisions for storm sewer lines “is subject to change due to the depth of groundwater in the pond area and forthcoming additional geotechnical borings in the area.” It is unclear from documents submitted how depth to groundwater or additional geotechnical borings will change the fact expressed by the geotechnical engineer that “…detention ponds can become locations of enhanced and concentrated infiltration into the subsurface”. This identified condition combined with an upgradient detention pond can lead “…to wetting of foundation soils in the vicinity with consequent heave or settlement.” To mitigate this condition, as well as infiltration from storm sewer lines, the geotechnical engineer recommends a low-permeability liner for the

05/18/2023

detention pond and cut-off walls and/or drainage provisions for the storm sewer lines.As stated in our previous letter, “the recommendation for a low permeability liner for the sub- regional detention pond #1 (now shown as sub-regional pond SR4) and the drainage provisions for storm sewer lines must be followed. These recommendations should be indicated in the drainage report and shown on the preliminary drawings prepared for this project”.Provided the concerns acknowledged in Response Letter 1 are addressed, and Grounds recommendations for a low permeability liner, and cut-off walls and/or drainage provisions for storm sewer lines flowing to the pond are strictly adhered to, CGS has no objection to approval of the Preliminary Plan as proposed.Thank you for the continued opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or require further review, please call me at 303-384-2654, or e-mail jlovekin@mines.edu.Sincerely,Jonathan R. Lovekin, P.G. Senior Engineering Geologist

UPPER BLACK SQUIRREL GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

The Board of Directors of the Upper Black Squirrel Creek has sent this review to their consultant to look over. As soon as I hear back from them I will let you know if the Board has any comments.

Tracy DoranOffice Manager for the UBSCGWMD520 Colorado Avenue, CCalhan, Co 80808719-347-0704 Office719-494-4348 Cell719-347-9423 Faxwww.upperblacksquirrelcreekwater.com

PIKES PEAK REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT

Floodplain

No comments.

Enumerations

1. Enumerations has received confirmation from El Paso/Teller E-911 that Falcon Market Pl. is an approved street name. Signage should be installed with this development to clearly indicate where Eastonville Rd. stops and Falcon Market Pl. begins on the north side of this development, and to indicate where the E. Woodmen frontage road stops and Falcon Market Pl. begins on the south side of this development.

2. All addressing for the proposed lots in this development will be from Falcon Market Pl.F

Due to the number of comments and necessary revisions to the plan(s) an additional detailed review will be necessary. Please address the comments as listed above. A

05/18/2023

detailed letter needs to accompany the revisions to allow for an expeditious re-review timeframe. The letter should include each comment listed above and, immediately thereafter, include a response from the applicant addressing the comment.

If any review agency has an issue that needs resolution or requires a revision, you will need to provide the necessary documents, drawings, etc., to the Planning and Community Development Department in the form of a resubmittal. The Planning and Community Development Department will then forward the resubmitted items directly to the appropriate review agency. If you have any questions pertaining to specific agency comments please contact the appropriate agency directly.

PLEASE NOTE: The application cannot be scheduled for public hearing until and unless a final response has been received by Planning and Community Development from those agencies that are required (pursuant to state statute and the El Paso County Land Development Code) to provide such response (i.e.- State Engineer’s Office, County Attorney’s Office, County Health Department, etc).

Please contact me if you would like to schedule a meeting with myself or the multi-disciplinary team.

When all the comments have been addressed and corrections made please submit the following revised documents:3 letters of Intent2 response letters2 preliminary plan sets with landscaping, and erosion and grading only (Additionally provide 1 set of 8.5 x 11”).2 of the engineering documents and reports to be revised

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at 520-6306.

Best Regards,

Kari ParsonsEl Paso County Planning and Community Development Department

cc: Jeff Rice P.E.

File: SP-17-001 & EGP

05/18/2023